RE: Four-cylinder Supra already confirmed
Discussion
otolith said:
I'm simply unconvinced that "over-engineering" an engine to be able to exceed its design parameters (including durability) at the expense of weight is admirable. Everything is a trade-off, and the job is to fit them to the purpose.
In 99.9% of the time you will not benefit from a 20 kg weight saving by going from iron to aluminium.You would however benefit from a motor designed to be a bit more durable (and one that can still run with 2 x the power of standard) pretty much the entire time you have the car.
Too much 'Formula 1 thinking' and not enough common sense here...
otolith said:
"What does 20kg here and 20kg there matter?" - admire Mazda's gram strategy more, to be honest, but there you go.
Yeah?Spin and Marketing...
20kg matters when losing that weight translates to a tangible gain in the design of a very light vehicle (sub 600 kg race car?)
1500 kg Supra is no less engaging than a 1480 kg Supra, the same way as driving with a full tank of petrol vs 2/3rds of a tank.
A 500 HP 1500 kg Supra will be far far more engaging than a 320 HP 1480 KG Supra.
otolith said:
"What does 20kg here and 20kg there matter?" - admire Mazda's gram strategy more, to be honest, but there you go.
They couldn't have done this back then even if they wanted to, why are Mazda now? well ok partly because they can market a weigh saving and that can impact on the emissions figure which are a great selling point, but I would suggest a massive part is the cost saving to them? Computers are crunching numbers to lower weight and retain acceptable functionality, it's cost efficient when it could never be back in the early 90's?
My argument here is that in the long run this could mean more rounded bolts in year 7 onward, or potentially a more door dent prone car from the outset? I mean where do manufacturers draw the line on deciding a simple door skin thickness, they can go high tensile steel and therefore thinner and lighter but costly. It's the sort of argument "you want light, strong, and reasonable cost".......pick two. I would think a Rolls is over engineered in your eyes but what they are doing it selling quality and quality is never flimsy, so then if you move to a sporty car but still an expensive/quality marque you again can't push the lightness too far in all areas, if you are large 'white good' manufacturer like Toyota were and are creating a signature car, one of your most expensive ever then again where do you pitch it? I think they went with quality, saved some weight where they could, but didn't get too carried away?
So from a pure design point of view they may have got it wrong, but the tools of the car design trade were limited and it's still been a great car with its few excess kg's. It's toughness over the years I think compensates for a slight weight penalty, is like spec'ing AC in a car in the days of old as being cool is more than a trade off for some slight dynamic disadvantage.
Just to bring the context back, this conversation is what I was responding to;
J4CKO said:
But why the love for the old Toyota engine over the ostensibly similar BMW engine, which seems to be being seen as a wooden spoon almost ?
Is the Toyota engine more rev happy, lighter, does it sound nicer?
It's seriously over-engineered. Something you'll never see again.Is the Toyota engine more rev happy, lighter, does it sound nicer?
gareth_r said:
t's seriously over-engineered. Something you'll never see again.
If the BMW engine makes the design outputs reliably, it would not be better engineered by making it stronger at the cost of more money or weight. I suspect that old engines with very wide margins for tuning were like that because at the time they couldn’t be designed more efficiently.
otolith said:
If the BMW engine makes the design outputs reliably, it would not be better engineered by making it stronger at the cost of more money or weight.
I suspect that old engines with very wide margins for tuning were like that because at the time they couldn’t be designed more efficiently.
Yes - but it won't be as tunable. Little piggy back box might get it to 450bhp - a far cry from the 700bhp monsters that could be made reliably by the older model. I suspect that old engines with very wide margins for tuning were like that because at the time they couldn’t be designed more efficiently.
Plus, BMW engines have a habit of munching chains/tensioners etc. From a longevity POV Toyota engines have a lot more going for them. It's a shame the V8 from the RCF/LC500 isn't an option. It will be an easier ownership proposition.
st4 said:
otolith said:
If the BMW engine makes the design outputs reliably, it would not be better engineered by making it stronger at the cost of more money or weight.
I suspect that old engines with very wide margins for tuning were like that because at the time they couldn’t be designed more efficiently.
Yes - but it won't be as tunable. Little piggy back box might get it to 450bhp - a far cry from the 700bhp monsters that could be made reliably by the older model. I suspect that old engines with very wide margins for tuning were like that because at the time they couldn’t be designed more efficiently.
otolith said:
First owners mostly won't care.
They will when it starts rattling and cutting out with just 15k on the clock. People buy Toyota's because they work. They're in for a culture shock with this. BMW engines are mobile grenades, particularly 4 cylinder ones. It would be better if the car came with the 3.5 from the Evora, or the 5.0 from the Lexus.
otolith said:
If the BMW engine makes the design outputs reliably, it would not be better engineered by making it stronger at the cost of more money or weight.
I suspect that old engines with very wide margins for tuning were like that because at the time they couldn’t be designed more efficiently.
100% agree. The new engine is better at fitting the design brief, BMW engineers, designers and even the accountants can pat themselves on the back for making a good efficient package. To do more would have been wasteful especially from a company stand point and even to a new owner if they would have had to pay more for it. The argument for car manufacturers is that as they/we are affected by fashion/newness cycle, to some extent building them to last too long is not cost effective in general. They are trying to sell as many new units as possible, whilst minimising any publicly damaging failures as they age, that could then adversely affect new sales. I suspect that old engines with very wide margins for tuning were like that because at the time they couldn’t be designed more efficiently.
It's down the line that I think 'we' (used car, future classic car owners) can benefit or not, very few cars die from a common fault in their early years, but a number develop them in the 7-13 years and I would say these were marginally engineered or that the design brief didn't factor in beyond a certain age/mileage, ie they don't mind what happens after this.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff